I am reading your book "Outside the Caholic Church there is absolutely no salvation". I have read pages 194 thru 240; I thought your treatment of Fr Feeny was very accurate but that you did not give him enough credit for making the stand and taking the blows. I thought the part on Pius XII was good too; all though you and St. Benedict Center both seem to miss a very important passage in Mystici Corporis that, I believe puts the whole issue to rest, clearly in favor of The Dogma (at least I'm not aware of it in any of the St. Benedict Center writings). Paragraph 40, the last sentence reads: That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter 'Unam Sanctam'; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. I know you know what Unam Sanctam says, so my point is Pius XII is giving unfettered approval to Unam Sanctam and in so doing, the Dogma, and plants it in Mystici Corporis, in the middle of the 20th century and points out that Boniface's successors have never ceased to repeat the same. Meaning that every pope from Boniface VIII to Pius XII affirmed the Dogma. This alone should have been enough to silence Fr. Feeny's critics. But it did not work out that way then, but maybe it can help to do so now.
I bought your book from Gerry M in San Jose, couple of months ago. He got a working over by some of the locals an the sede vacantist issue. In my mind who is or is not the pope will straighten its self out once the Dogma is believed again. If Benedict XVI is the not the pope, so what, I still have to save my soul. If he is the pope, so what, I still have to save my soul. Like you correctly point out in the book the issue is not the Mass; well it's not the pope either!
Go with God,
Dan, thank you for your letter. We would encourage you to read the rest of the book, since the quote from Mystici Corporis which you bring up is given on page 257 (as you said, you’ve only reached page 240). It’s brought up in the context of addressing the St. Benedict Center’s claim that the first part of Pope Boniface VIII’s Bull Unam Sanctam – the part where it is taught that there is no salvation nor remission of sins outside the Church – is not infallible. The St. Benedict Center holds that an unbaptized catechumen is outside the Catholic Church (which is correct, since only Baptism makes one a member). However, while they correctly profess that it is only through Baptism that one can be inside the Church, they hold that an unbaptized catechumen can have Justification (remission of sins and sanctifying grace) by his desire for baptism, while he is still outside the Church. Thus, they hold that there can be remission of sins outside the Church, which contradicts Bull Unam Sanctam.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”The way they attempt to justify their position is by arguing that the part of the Bull quoted directly above is not infallible. They argue that only the end of the Bull, the part about the absolute necessity of being entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff, is the only part that is infallible. But this is contradicted by the quote below.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 40), June 29, 1943: “That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his predecessors have never ceased to repeat the same.”Pope Pius XII is referring to the part of Unam Sanctam which the defenders of the St. Benedict Center argue is not solemn (infallible), and he says that it is “solemn” (infallible). Regarding not giving Fr. Feeney enough credit in the book, the book does give him quite a bit of credit. However, the book points out that it’s not about Fr. Feeney; it’s about the dogmatic teaching of the Church. Furthermore, any true Catholic priest should have taken the stand for the necessity of the Church that he did. It’s the duty of a Catholic, and especially a priest, to stand uncompromisingly for the Faith. One of the problems with the St. Benedict Center is that they are, unfortunately, just followers of Fr. Feeney, not of God. In our opinion, that’s a large reason why they maintain allegiance to the manifestly heretical Vatican II sect. In his day, Fr. Feeney had not yet reached the point where he rejected the Vatican II “Popes” as Antipopes – as almost no one did at that time. Even though the evidence is now totally undeniable and clear, the St. Benedict Center won’t embrace it because Fr. Feeney didn’t do it first. They are followers of man, not God. Regarding your claim that we don’t have to worry about the “pope issue” as long as we believe in the dogma, you are mistaken. One cannot profess a consistent belief in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, nor even present the Catholic Faith consistently to non-Catholics, if one doesn’t hold the sedevacantist position and completely reject the Novus Ordo Bishops as outside the Church. Otherwise you are affirming as part of the Catholic Church a body of “Bishops” and a “Pope” who utterly reject this dogma which you say is key. Thus, acceptance of sedevacantism is intimately bound up with a true profession of the dogma. That’s why it’s absolutely true to say that the St. Benedict Centers (both of them) don’t even believe that Outside the Church There is No Salvation is a binding dogma of the Faith, for it is a fact that they hold that people can be inside the Church (such as the Novus Ordo Bishops and Vatican II Antipopes) while rejecting this dogma. Hence, if you really believe in the dogma, then you will conclude that Benedict XVI and his apostate Bishops are outside the Church, just like the Protestants.